In short – it can’t. Byron York, upon perusing the latest polls, reports that much of his support is coming from non-Republicans:

The Texas congressman is leading some polls in Iowa and is in a tie for second in New Hampshire. A candidacy once dismissed as sideshow is now being taken very seriously; the front page of Monday’s Des Moines Register featured a huge spread under the headline “COULD RON PAUL WIN?”

Given Paul’s views on the Fed, the gold standard and social issues, not to mention his isolationist foreign policy, the polls have left some politicos wondering whether Republican voters have somehow swerved off the rails. But there’s another question that should be asked first: Who are Ron Paul’s supporters? Are they, in fact, Republicans?

In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, “Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus.”

The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third — 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.

York spoke with Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll, who indicated that many of these Paul voters are engaging in election mischief…

In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.

“Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren’t really Republicans but say they’re going to vote in the Republican primary,” explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are “trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme,” says Smith.

Paul tops the field when pollsters ask Republicans which candidate they are certain not to support. “When you ask people which candidate they are least likely to vote for, Ron Paul is pretty high, because most Republicans here really don’t want to vote for him,” says Smith. “His support is not coming, by and large, from Republican voters.”

Why are non Republicans even allowed to vote in some Republican primaries and caucuses? Isn’t that how we ended up with John McCain in 2008? This needs to stop.

He won’t get the nomination. There are plenty of states that only allow registered republicans to vote. He is going to do much better this time around, that is for sure. I think he will win Iowa, and may very well win Virginia now. But he will lose steam the more time goes.

Is there any evidence that Democrats are voting for Ron Paul to “throw a monkey wrench” into the GOP nomination process beyond anecdotal accounts or the double hearsay cited above? And Ron Paul voters are the conspiracy theorists?

Is there any evidence that Democrats are voting for Ron Paul to “throw a monkey wrench” into the GOP nomination–other than anecdotal evidence and hearsay? I don’t know…common sense? Because this goes on in open primaries every time?

Let’s not forget that our dear friend, Rush Limbaugh…
Why? What does Limbaugh have to do with Ron Paul’s non Republican support?

Hey Nathan, have you read Paul’s newsletter? Are you a 9/11 truther, too? Didn’t think we should have invaded Afghanistan, or even Germany to prevent the Holocaust? Don’t think Israel should exist? People who support that over the status quo are not conservative Republicans — as should be obvious.

I don’t expect you to admit that your post is absolutely baseless speculation, but there is really no need to attack me over it. No I am not a 9/11 truther and yes I am well aware of Mr. Paul’s newsletter. The newsletter issue is a problem for me but he has disavowed it and at the end of the day, he is the only one that has any credibility with respect to the absolute biggest problem in this country which is our runaway spending. Ron Paul has NEVER said that Israel should not exist. I did think that we should have invaded Afghanistan and I felt so strongly about the “war on terrorism” that I actually volunteered to be deployed to Iraq where I served during 2003-2004. There is a reason why Ron Paul blows away the rest of the field in donations from active duty military who actually have to deal with the consequences of our current foreign policy. If having as my number one priority a candidate that will actually work to cut spending means that I am not “conservative” according to you, then so be it and we can continue our steady march towards socialism.

And it’s hard to go to any candidate’s event without the Paulites infiltrating, they join other campaigns just to spy and cause havoc. Not nice people,but then Ron himself is not exactly the finest personality.

I didn’t attack you. I pointed out the painfully obvious reasons no sane Republican would support Ron Paul. His disavowals over his news letter should be further proof to you that the man is not to be trusted, now that video evidence has been unearthed that shows him promoting the newsletters he claims not to have read.

No “sane” Republican…so I, and 20%+ of IA Republican voters are “insane”? If it’s not a direct attack on our sanity or intelligence, it’s passive aggressiveness like this. Maybe we are just tired of having the same crappy democrat-lite GOP candidate forced down our throat.

By the way, who are you leaning towards at this point, Deb? Because I would love to do a side-by-side comparison between Ron Paul’s record and that of any of the other candidates. It’s easy to point out deficiencies in another candidate if you don’t have to defend yours. Are you comfortable with Romney winning the nomination? What in his record indicates that he will govern “conservatively”? Do you even care about how much money we are spending in this country? What gives you confidence that any of the other potential candidates will seriously take on our spending problem? I think that it is insane to continue to nominate “electable” candidates like John McCain or Mitt Romney that will continue to hold hands with the democrats to print money and spend this country into oblivion. UNLESS all that you care about is the guy with the (R) after the name wins regardless of what they do once elected. I am a conservative first and Republican second. Can you say the same?

I can say that, Nathan, without reservation, and I truly believe that not only is Paul a whack job but is unfit to be president, just as much as Mr. Obama was in 2008 (and is now.) He not only leans heavily toward “Truther” crap, he not only is not the “principled” person Ronulans believe he is (see William Teach’s comment just before yours), any person who signs anything as “his” and then disavows what he signs is not only not administrative material, in the case of the presidency he is a danger to the country. That’s exactly the kind of barnyard manure that happened with the ObamaCare bill.

If Paul signed the newsletters without reading them it shows an incredible lack of responsibility and capability to properly oversee a project.

If he DID read the newsletters it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what this country is all about.

In other words, he is either an incompetent or a liar, and from what I’ve seen he’s both.

None of the candidates is pure as the wind-driven snow, Nathan, but the one that comes closest in both his political life, his experience and his personal life is Santorum. It’s too bad he hasn’t gained traction and support from those who call themselves conservatives and TEA partiers, but I guess if Mitt can say he’s a TEA partier as a socialist, I guess Ron can call himself a conservative, too.

“On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.

As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.”

I see you went to the tea parties, Deb. So did I. If Romney is our nominee, I have to ask myself, what the heck was the point of the tea party?

Rescued the latest comment from spam bucket.
Santorum helped craft the welfare reform bill and the partial birth abortion ban.. Where was Paul on that? Running his mouth off on the Bildersbergers most likely.

I don’t know where Paul was, Deb, and I salute Santorum on those two issues. Like I said, he is not awful like Romney and Gingrich, I just don’t see him as having any shot at getting the nomination. If he can’t finish in the top 3 in IA, when will he? Paul certainly seems to be very pro-life which is very important to me as well. I can’t imagine he wasn’t for welfare reform. I am still in shock that you would vote for Obama over Paul though. Seems a bit extreme.

Santorum is rising in the polls. In fact, right now, his campaign is the one with the most momentum. Still a long shot. Not gonna lie – I’m not happy with how things are shaking out. I have little confidence in Mitt, but would soldier up for him in a fight against Obama.

I never said I would vote for Obama over Paul. I said I might stay home.

Depending on how well he does in IA, supporting Santorum almost becomes a cop-out once it becomes crystal-clear that he has no shot at the nomination. Even if he does well in IA, where he has put all his eggs, I don’t see him as having the organization or cash to make a serious run from there. Consequently, I see it as Paul vs. Romney/Gingrich at this point. I can’t believe that you think that either one of those gentleman are more trustworthy than Paul is on any issue, but especially on spending.

As a tea partier, I am surprised about how little big government spending bothers you. I’m sure that will all change with Romney or Gingrich (likely Romney) who will competently and intelligently continue down the path that Obama has set for them and steer this country off a cliff.

Clearly my time in Iraq was wasted. It looks like the tea party was a waste of time too. All that time we were protesting out of control government spending and the health care bill we were REALLY worried about Iran and Israel. Oh, wait…

As a tea partier, I am not looking for the President to control spending. Those powers were given to Congress. All I’m looking for the President to do is run America Inc with some skill. Cutting spending, especially at the domestic level, must occur in Congress, and if the GOP has a loony at the top of the ticket, it’ll be that much harder to have radical cost-cutting tea-partiers get elected to Congress.

Sorry, just don’t understand how easily people are swayed by misinformation.
Oh, cut it out. Ron Paul didn’t just come from nowhere and conservatives are just now getting up to speed about him. We’ve known these things about him for quite some time by his words and by his deeds. Just because evidence is now surfacing during a primary election doesn’t mean it’s “misinformation” especially since much of it is on video.

Clearly my time in Iraq was wasted….
Nathan, whatever. It’s the internet so you can say whatever you want about your personal biography. The fact that you keep bringing up your military service and teaparty creds makes me inclined to not believe it.

Remember how some Republicans voted in the dimcratic primary for hillary in ’08 ? I am CERTAIN that dimocrats are voting in these polls for Republicans and are ramping up the numbers for Paul because they know he would be a pathetic opponent opposite The Domestic Enemy.
Also, Ron Paul is just another Domestic Enemy himself.

You want to call me out and cast aspersions on my honesty? You have my email address, right? Why don’t you send me a test email and I will send you photo proof of my time in Iraq and my time at tea parties with my little one. I expect that you would apologize for once you receive proof of my veracity.

I brought up my service and my tea party experience to address a couple of issues: 1) Your focus on Ron Paul’s foreign policy…There is a reason that veterans like myself that actually had to deal with the consequences of our nation-building foreign policy overwhelmingly support Paul vs. the other GOP candidates and that you don’t even attempt to argue my point that Iraq was a pointless war and 2) The entire GOP establishment and conservative blogosphere seems to have forgotten what the tea party was actually about. It was a movement based on the ridiculous spending by both parties. Neo-cons have tried to co-opt the tea party message by stating that one can’t be part of the tea party and also support Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I am sorry but that is plain bunk.

Even if I totally disagreed with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, he is so far ahead of the other candidates when it comes to credibility on spending that I would still support him.

I was trying to discuss whether or not there was any credence to the claim that people were supporting Ron Paul to deliberately sabotage the GOP chances.Your original post was pure speculation and conjecture and I called you on it. You have never admitted that there was nothing to your original post other than your “common sense”. I can’t help but appreciate the irony of your telling me, “It’s the internet so you can say whatever you want about your personal biography” as your original post was based on nothing more than internet speculation that you obviously cannot back up.

You didn’t like that so you asked if I was a truther and whether we should have gone into Afghanistan, etc. If you are going to lump me in with truthers, anti-war activists, Israel-haters, etc., I think that it is completely fair for me to bring up my service in Iraq to defend myself to demonstrate that you have got me completely wrong.

It was YOU that brought this discussion down to another level and I defended myself and then you took it even lower by suggesting I was lying about serving in Iraq. Unlike your claim, I can back my claims up with actual EVIDENCE of my service and my time at tea party rallies.

Nathan. My original post was taken from longtime political reporter, Byron York’s post who interviewed the head of a polling outfit who told him his sense of what was going on — which is the one anyone with a brain could have told you.
I’m sorry. I’m going to say this as delicately as I can —
RON PAUL IS NUTS.
MOST OF HIS SUPPORT IS COMING FROM CONFUSED COLLEGE KIDS, AN EXTREME WING OF LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICANS, AND NON-REPUBLICANS.
HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION.
And thank God for that. He would be a disaster.

I’m sorry your service in Iraq has brought you to a place where you can support such a crackpot.